CYIL 2011

THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW… cease to be representatives of their States or at the international level. The decision thus sustained the concept of immunity and at the same time pointed out other ways of finding suspected criminals responsible for committing crimes under international law. The aforementioned decisions dealt with similar cases with different results; however, the position of a current representative of State, as far as international law is concerned, remains the same (emphasis added). Furthermore, as the ICJ mentioned several times under different circumstances, international law is not static. Another impact of international criminal law could thus occur in the area of a withdrawal of protection of State representatives in cases of gross violations of human rights. Nevertheless, this may become a reality only if States achieve a stage of being willing to provide such consent. Another area of international law covers State immunity itself, as opposed to the immunity of State representatives. This concept has the same legal reasoning behind it, the principle of par in parem non habet imperium , which has primarily been used in this sphere. And similarly, there have been several cases dealing with clashes between ius cogens norms and immunity restrictions. Since these cases included individual human rights and appeared at the international level because of the claims of individuals, they are presented in subpart c) on International Human Rights Law. 26 b) International Treaty law This part of the article argues that the limitations on State sovereignty in relation to international criminal law may also be seen in the area of treaty adoption and implementation. The introductory remarks will focus on the fact that the principle of individual criminal responsibility at the international level for certain types of conduct has influenced the scope of State sovereignty in relation to its capacity to adopt certain type of norms. The constraints on State sovereignty were presented on different occasions. One can, however, focus on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Reservations on the Genocide Convention. The ICJ explained that only those reservations that were not incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty were permissible. This advisory opinion of 1951 on a convention criminalizing the conduct of genocide, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, influenced the negotiation process of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 (VCLT), in which the concept of object and purpose was presented in the articles on treaty interpretation and treaty reservation. 27 Moreover, the concept of ius cogens norm was presented; ius cogens norms as norms accepted and recognised by the international community of States as a whole as a norm that cannot be derogated and that makes every other norm void if it contradicts this norm. States thus cannot 26 Another case concerning State immunity is being decided by the International Court of Justice, see Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy). Initial documents are available [online] at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&code=ai&case=143&k=60 [last visit 21 June 2011]. 27 See art. 19-23 and art. 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

183